QUESTION: Does Conservation of Matter and Energy, Throughout Cycles and Phase Shifts, Entail the Quality of a Conscious Conserver?
ABSOLUTES: There are absolutes, but none of them abide "as Substance." Rather, all absolutes abide as Information, but only regarding derivatives of qualities of relations among patterns, interfunctioning with Consciousness, subject to a Source which continues to impose common mathematical limits upon interactive sequences of relations among patterns. But for a trivalent interfunctioning of Substance, Information, and Consciousness, that Information which we consider "absolute" would not abide.
RELATIONSHIPS: Every substantive thing partakes of the aspect of a relation, in that no substantive thing would exist, but for its measurable relations to all other substantive things. The conserver or producer of measurable mass, fluxing within degrees of freedom, is not a particle or Higgs boson, but a mathematical function, being imposed upon all perspectives of consciousness by a higher, unifying, synchronizing, singular Source of Consciousness.
SUPERPOSITIONING OF THE QUANTIFIABLE WITHIN A META FIELD OF THE QUALITATIVE: Conservation is of quantities of relational Substance, measurable to potential observers; conservation is not of any substantive thing in itself, for there is no substantive thing in itself. Our world is not one of dumb Substance in itself, but of shared mathematical limits, often set by higher Authority to meta auto pilot, so that Substance lasts to limits availed for us to vent our frustrations. Our separate perspectives are nurtured and nested within the immeasurable grace of a meta provider. Substance as a non-relational, thing in itself is a receding illusion, for there are no ultimate particles from which all others are built or given mass. The territory upon which quantitative interactions are superimposed and availed is immeasurably qualitative, not measurably quantitative.
TERRITORY: Our substantively measurable "territory" consists of "nothing but" pre-set and/or guiding Will, as represented and conserved by The Source. That said, "nothing but" does not adequately convey another idea, to wit: Apart from various intuitions, we seem to have little idea what is the ultimate character of The Source. To my intuition, IT's character relates more to testing various perspectives of Itself, by separating such perspectives so that each cannot know, but can only intuit and empathize concerning the quality and interests of all others. In other words, the character of The Source relates more to learning to experience Empathy for various levels of self-aware companions than with Loving any particular perspective (except perhaps some ultimate perspective) above all others. That which The Source learns and deems worthwhile as a result of my experience may be preserved or recycled for future expression, perhaps in somewhat different forms.
CHURCHING DECENT COMMUNAL EMPATHIES: That which we most fundamentally intuit concerning our relationships with The Source seems fairly limited. Nevertheless, it is worth our while to join in communal celebrations of such relationships, to acknowledge and inspire appropriate, rewarding, communal empathies with regard to our unfolding daily interests and concerns within each community. Thus, we can each participate in evaluating the unfolding quality of one another's good faith and good will with regard to whether there is consistency between acts and blandishments. For that purpose, frequent reconsideration of old parables in light of new insights and experiences preserves ties of relevance between the unfolding logos of God and the present pursuits of each person and community. Perhaps, even crime syndicates and Islam may someday be decently reformed in such respect, though much work would first need to be done to spread literacy and respect within their venues for the freedom of each person's mind.
*********
QUESTION: How are substantive relations apprehended to relate to other relations in order to effect perceptions of change within a system whose holistic potential does not change?
Conscious beings sense, know, and interact with significations of Substance only in relations. By definition, a relation is not a thing in itself. How could a (Substance) relation-in-itself exist without violating the logical law of non-contradiction, apart from some extra-qualitative or non-quantitative capacity or potential to record (Information) or apprehend (Consciousness) it? How could a relation-in-itself exist in order to affect other such relations, apart from some non-quantitative capacity or potential to record or apprehend it? A non-substantive property cannot very well substantively collide with or push a substantive relation. So, HOW do relative perspectives, or capacities to apprehend relations affecting relations, INTERFUNCTION in order to experience, affect, or cause changes in such relations? Must consciousness itself, whether holistic or particular, carry some meta or paranormal power to collapse, direct, signify, or change perceptions of relations? How is it that such changes are holistically synchronized to the shared, measurably common experience of various perspectives of consciousness that abide in proximate space-time? HOW does one exercise or practice in order to enhance or enlighten one's meta power or receptivity for immeasurably channelling, guiding, apprehending, or affecting significations of substantive relations?
@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.
ABSOLUTES: There are absolutes, but none of them abide "as Substance." Rather, all absolutes abide as Information, but only regarding derivatives of qualities of relations among patterns, interfunctioning with Consciousness, subject to a Source which continues to impose common mathematical limits upon interactive sequences of relations among patterns. But for a trivalent interfunctioning of Substance, Information, and Consciousness, that Information which we consider "absolute" would not abide.
RELATIONSHIPS: Every substantive thing partakes of the aspect of a relation, in that no substantive thing would exist, but for its measurable relations to all other substantive things. The conserver or producer of measurable mass, fluxing within degrees of freedom, is not a particle or Higgs boson, but a mathematical function, being imposed upon all perspectives of consciousness by a higher, unifying, synchronizing, singular Source of Consciousness.
SUPERPOSITIONING OF THE QUANTIFIABLE WITHIN A META FIELD OF THE QUALITATIVE: Conservation is of quantities of relational Substance, measurable to potential observers; conservation is not of any substantive thing in itself, for there is no substantive thing in itself. Our world is not one of dumb Substance in itself, but of shared mathematical limits, often set by higher Authority to meta auto pilot, so that Substance lasts to limits availed for us to vent our frustrations. Our separate perspectives are nurtured and nested within the immeasurable grace of a meta provider. Substance as a non-relational, thing in itself is a receding illusion, for there are no ultimate particles from which all others are built or given mass. The territory upon which quantitative interactions are superimposed and availed is immeasurably qualitative, not measurably quantitative.
TERRITORY: Our substantively measurable "territory" consists of "nothing but" pre-set and/or guiding Will, as represented and conserved by The Source. That said, "nothing but" does not adequately convey another idea, to wit: Apart from various intuitions, we seem to have little idea what is the ultimate character of The Source. To my intuition, IT's character relates more to testing various perspectives of Itself, by separating such perspectives so that each cannot know, but can only intuit and empathize concerning the quality and interests of all others. In other words, the character of The Source relates more to learning to experience Empathy for various levels of self-aware companions than with Loving any particular perspective (except perhaps some ultimate perspective) above all others. That which The Source learns and deems worthwhile as a result of my experience may be preserved or recycled for future expression, perhaps in somewhat different forms.
CHURCHING DECENT COMMUNAL EMPATHIES: That which we most fundamentally intuit concerning our relationships with The Source seems fairly limited. Nevertheless, it is worth our while to join in communal celebrations of such relationships, to acknowledge and inspire appropriate, rewarding, communal empathies with regard to our unfolding daily interests and concerns within each community. Thus, we can each participate in evaluating the unfolding quality of one another's good faith and good will with regard to whether there is consistency between acts and blandishments. For that purpose, frequent reconsideration of old parables in light of new insights and experiences preserves ties of relevance between the unfolding logos of God and the present pursuits of each person and community. Perhaps, even crime syndicates and Islam may someday be decently reformed in such respect, though much work would first need to be done to spread literacy and respect within their venues for the freedom of each person's mind.
*********
QUESTION: How are substantive relations apprehended to relate to other relations in order to effect perceptions of change within a system whose holistic potential does not change?
Conscious beings sense, know, and interact with significations of Substance only in relations. By definition, a relation is not a thing in itself. How could a (Substance) relation-in-itself exist without violating the logical law of non-contradiction, apart from some extra-qualitative or non-quantitative capacity or potential to record (Information) or apprehend (Consciousness) it? How could a relation-in-itself exist in order to affect other such relations, apart from some non-quantitative capacity or potential to record or apprehend it? A non-substantive property cannot very well substantively collide with or push a substantive relation. So, HOW do relative perspectives, or capacities to apprehend relations affecting relations, INTERFUNCTION in order to experience, affect, or cause changes in such relations? Must consciousness itself, whether holistic or particular, carry some meta or paranormal power to collapse, direct, signify, or change perceptions of relations? How is it that such changes are holistically synchronized to the shared, measurably common experience of various perspectives of consciousness that abide in proximate space-time? HOW does one exercise or practice in order to enhance or enlighten one's meta power or receptivity for immeasurably channelling, guiding, apprehending, or affecting significations of substantive relations?
@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.
1 comment:
The "us against them," "kill or be killed" meme of natural selection is Progressives' only idea of a highest value. They need that meme, because they have no hope or insight that any other higher value could inspire or unite us. So, we have Dawkins suggesting Earth was seeded by space aliens, and now we have Krugman suggesting we need to pretend the aliens have come back. Egads!
Post a Comment